Johnson v. Hocker

​

T

HIS was an action of debt brought upon a bond bearing date the 24th of April, 1779, and conditioned for the payment of Ł.500. lawful money of Pennʃylvania. To the Plaintiff's demand the Defendant pleaded payment, and iffue was thereupon joined.

On the trial of the caufe, Sergeant, in order to prove payment to the Treafure agreeably to the tender law, offered to read the following certificate to the Jury:−“ Received 29th March, 1780,

“ of Mr. George Hocker, the fum of Ł373.6.6. being two thirds

“ of a bond and intereft due to Mr. J. Johnʃon of Germantown,

“ which be reʃuʃed to receive when legally tendered to him in preʃence oƒ”

“ Balzer Hidrecks and Conrad Reedheiʃʃer ; the other one third he

“ left in my hands to be given to fuch poor and diftreffed perfon

“ as I fhall think proper objects of charity. Iʃaac Snowden, Treaf-

“ urer. ”

Lewis, for the Plaintiff, objected to the evidence, that this was not a certificate merely official ; but containing certain extra-judicial facts, to which Snowden, like any other witnefs, ought to be produced and fworn. The confequence of admitting it, would be highly dangerous.

Sergeant anfwered, that what was furplufage might be rejected, and the paper go to the Jury only as proof of the receipt of the money. If a Notary in England introduced foreign matter into the proteft of a bill of exchange, the Court would ftrike out fo much as was furplufage, but would never fupprefs the whole. Snowden could eafily on this occafion be produced ; but fimilar cafes may occur at a diftance, in which it would be impracticable, and great inconveniency and injuftice would refult from the precedent ​ ​ ​ afterwards as to these which were previously, emitted by Congress:—A matter that we are not bound, nor are we inclined to countenance.

This opinion, unanimously formed, upon mutual consultation, and full deliberation, leads to a more particular consideration of the evidence; and, if the Jury think that the bills of credit, or any part of them, which were tendered to the Plaintiff on the 29th of March, 1780, were emitted subsequent to the 29th of January, 1777, they must only give this tender the effect at common law.

It may be proper here to notice, that these were two bills of thirty dollars each, in the bundle of paper money tendered; and the Plaintiff's counsel has said, that there no bills of that denomination emitted prior to the 29th of January 1777. But he is certainly mistaken; as I remember well the trial of a man for counterfeiting a thirty dollar bill emitted in 1776; and, therefore, this circumstance is by no means conclusive.

But should the Jury, upon the whole of the evidence, find, that this tender was made in bills of credit emitted since the 29th of January, 1777, and so not an absolute discharge of the debt, they will next enquire, in what manner the bond ought not to be paid? By the act of the 3d of April, 1781, it is declared, that all debts and contracts entered into between the 1st of January, 1777, and the 1st of March, 1781, shall be liquidated according to the scale of depreciation. The Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to recover the whole £500. in specie, but only so much as that sum in paper money was worth at the time the contract was entered into; which was on the 24th of April, 1777: Nor is he entitled to any interest from the date of the tender until this action (which is to be considered as a new demand) was instituted.

The Jury found a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for £272. 3. 4. debt with costs: from which, it seems, that they were of opinion, that the tender was not made entirely in bills of credit emitted before the 29th of January, 1777; and that they pursued the directions of the Court in that alternative.